----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christians and
violence
JT > By the second century the early church was off into heresy
BT: You've said this on numerous
occasions, Judy: I am wondering, what was that heresy?
JT > and when Constantine
tried to blend church with state it made things much worse.
BT: On the one hand, Constantine
is to be thanked for putting an end to Roman sanctioned persecution of
Christians; on the other hand, he opened the door to no end of violent
crimes on the part of Christians against humanity -- whether it be in wars
against their Christian brothers or against worldly opposition. And so, I agree
with you -- in part. Nevertheless, I am surprised he is not your hero. Were it
not for him, your doctrine may have still been consistent with the early NT
church.
JT > Paul exhorts his hearers
to obey those who have been given Governmental authority
Yes, you are right: he did. Please allow me to set
a couple questions. The early church was under persecution, sometimes quite
intense, throughout the Second and Third centuries. These Christians lived in
Rome or Roman provinces. They were under Roman rule -- a rule which was truly
tyrannical. Nevertheless, they did not consider it a Christian alternative to
take up arms and fight for the right to govern themselves as they saw fit. In
other words they did not seek to declare their independence from Rome and
establish a separate nation of their own. Theirs was not a call to take up
weapons: they were to take up their crosses daily.
On the other hand, this is precisely the opposite of what our American forefathers found in the counsel they were receiving. They lived in English colonies, as English citizens, under English rule. Rather than live peaceably under the prescribed laws of their governing authorites, they cried tyrany, rebelled, declared their independence, took up arms, and in a bloodly war fought their way to nation status. All of this they did in and under the name of Christ.
My question is this: If, as you rightly observe, Paul exhorts Christians to obey those who have been given Governmental authority, why was it a "Christian" thing to do for our founders to disobey those who had been given Governmental authority over them? (I would very much like an answer to this question -- and not only from you, but from Izzy also).
On the other hand, this is precisely the opposite of what our American forefathers found in the counsel they were receiving. They lived in English colonies, as English citizens, under English rule. Rather than live peaceably under the prescribed laws of their governing authorites, they cried tyrany, rebelled, declared their independence, took up arms, and in a bloodly war fought their way to nation status. All of this they did in and under the name of Christ.
My question is this: If, as you rightly observe, Paul exhorts Christians to obey those who have been given Governmental authority, why was it a "Christian" thing to do for our founders to disobey those who had been given Governmental authority over them? (I would very much like an answer to this question -- and not only from you, but from Izzy also).
If it was so clearly upon Christian principles that
our nation was founded (a claim that Izzy and others here on TT are so fond of
making), why did the Christians of less than one hundred years after the closing
of the NT Canon not find those same "principles" inscriptuarated in their
study? Why didn't those "principal" jump out to them as a strong point of
consideration? Why did those principles not drive them to the same conclusions
as our founding fathers?
Why did they not fight to establish a country of
their own, one wherein they could vote (to answer Izzy's indescretion) to uphold
the supposedly Christian "rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness?
JT > and it appears (at
least once) that [Paul] valued and used his Roman citizenship to get himself out
of trouble.
BT: Yes, he did. And he did it in
a non-violent way -- a difference which, in light of this discussion, I am
noting.
JT > Passivism early on led to monks, religious orders, quietism, pietism etc.
BT: It was not early "passivism" which led to these
things, Judy. These were all non-violent, post-Constantinian reactions to
Constantinian "Christian" madness.
JT > Do you see the "image of Christ" in any of them Bill?
BT: Yes, to some extent, I do; however, not completely.
These witnesses -- characteristically appealing primarily to the NT and the
example of Jesus -- have spoken out firmly against all war and killing and have
declared such practices incompatible with following Jesus. In this they are to
be admired and do reflect the "image of Christ." Nevertheless, as
movements they all moved away from Christ and into insignificance the more they
removed themselves from participation in the world. Never as Christians are we
called to enact a fortress mentality.
Allow me to state the obvious: history teaches that violence simply begets
violence. The long history of Christian "just wars" has wrought suffering
past all telling. Might it be that reason and sad experience could disabuse us
(read Christians) of the hope that we can approximate God's justice through
killing? Reason must be healed and taught by Scripture, and our experience must
be transformed by the renewing of our minds in conformity with the mind of
Christ. Only thus can Christians overcome their Constantinian warring
madness.
And let me clearly state that the reasons for choosing Jusus' way of
peacemaking are not prudential. In calculable terms, his way is sheer folly.
Still, why must we choose the way of non-violent love of enemies? If our
reasons for that choice are shaped by the NT, we are motivated not by the
sheer horror of war, not by the desire for saving our own skins and the
skins of our children, not by some general feeling of reverence for human
life, not by a naive notion that all people are basically nice and will be
friendly if we are friendly first. No, if our reasons for choosing non-violence
are shaped by the NT witness, we will act in simple obedience to the God
who willed that his own Son should give himself up to death on a cross. And we
will make this choice in the hope and anticipation that God's love will
finally prevail through the way of the cross, despite our inability to see how
this is possible. That is the life of discipleship to which the NT repeatedly
calls us. This is the embodied life of early Christianity. When the church
as a community is faithful to that calling, it prefigures the peaceable kingdom
of God in a world wracked by violence (as testified to in the witness
of those Second century Christians). This is the peace that passes
understanding. It is the peace that prompts the world to pronounce something
divine in our midst. "This does not seem to be the work of man," Mathetes wrote;
"this is the power of God," manifested in a uniquely peculiar form of
life. Only when the church renounces the way of violence will people see
what the Gospel means, because then they will see the way of Jesus reenacted in
the church.
Peace,
Bill
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
